A little known 20 40 year old climate change prediction by Dr. James Hansen – that failed will likely fail badly

UPDATE: Thanks to a tip from Willis Eschenbach, there’s some developing news in that story from Dr. James Hansen. The Salon interviewee and book author, Rob Reiss that I quoted, now admits he somehow conflated 40 years with 20 years, and concedes that Dr. Hansen actually said 40 years for his prediction. However, as the newest analysis shows, it doesn’t make any difference, and we still aren’t seeing the magnitude of sea level rise predicted, now 23 years into it.

See the relevant excerpt below:

Michaels also has the facts wrong about a 1988 interview of me by Bob Reiss, in which Reiss asked me to speculate on changes that might happen in New York City in 40 years assuming CO2 doubled in amount. Michaels has it as 20 years, not 40 years, with no mention of doubled CO2. Reiss verified this fact to me, but he later sent the message:

I went back to my book and re-read the interview I had with you. I am embarrassed to say that although the book text is correct, in remembering our original conversation, during a casual phone interview with a Salon magazine reporter in 2001 I was off in years. What I asked you originally at your office window was for a prediction of what Broadway would look like in 40 years, not 20. But when I spoke to the Salon reporter 10 years later probably because I’d been watching the predictions come true, I remembered it as a 20 year question.

Source: this update on Dr. Hansen’s personal web page at Columbia University.

In my story, below, I quoted from Reiss here in the Salon interview.

So I’m happy to make the correction for Dr. Hansen in my original article, since Mr. Reiss reports on his original error in conflating 40 years with 20 years. But let’s look at how this changes the situation with forty years versus twenty.

Per Dr. Hansen’s prediction in 1988, now in 2011, 23 years later, we’re a bit over halfway there … so the sea level rise should be about halfway up the side of Manhattan Island by now.

How’s that going? Are the predictions coming true? Let’s find out. Let’s look at the tide gauge in New York and see what it says.


Here’s the PSMSL page http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/12.php

You can see the terrifying surge of acceleration in the sea level due to increasing GHGs in the 20th century. Willis downloaded and plotted the data to see what the slope looked like, and then plotted a linear average line.

Here it is overlaid with the Colorado satellite data. Note the rate of rise is unchanged:

And add to that, the recent peer reviewed paper from the Journal of Coastal Research that said: “worldwide-temperature increase has not produced acceleration of global sea level over the past 100 years”

As of this update in March 2011, we’re 23 years into his prediction of the West Side Highway being underwater. From what I can measure in Google Earth, Dr. Hansen would need at least a ten foot rise in forty years to make his prediction work. See this image below from Google Earth where I placed the pointe over the West Side Highway, near the famous landmark and museum, the USS Intrepid:

According to Google Earth, the West Side Highway is 10 feet above sea level here - click to enlarge

The lat/lon should you wish to check yourself is: 40.764572° -73.998498°

Here’s a ground level view (via a tourist photo) so you can see the vertical distance from the roadway to the sea level on that day and tide condition. Sure looks like at least 10 feet to me.

Image from Panoramio

According to the actual data, after 23 years, we’ve seen about a 2.5 inch rise. There’ s still a very long way to go to ten feet to cover the West Side Highway there.

To reach the goal he predicted in 1988, Dr. Hansen needs to motivate the sea to do his bidding, he’s gonna have to kick it in gear and use a higher octane driver if he’s going to get there. – Anthony

The original story is below:

===========================================================

The news today from the Pew Institute tells us that many Americans are backing away from the predictions of catastrophic climate change. This may be because many predictions simply haven’t come true.

Most, if not all, WUWT readers know Dr. James Hansen of GISS. He’s credited with jump starting the debate in 1988 with his now famous “sweaty” testimony before Congress in June 1988. See more about the stagecraft of that event here.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/hansen_1988_congress.jpg?w=640

Readers might be tempted to think that I’m going to point out the discrepancies between the three different model scenarios that Dr. Hansen presented to Congress in 1988, as shown below. But these model projections are very well known. I’m talking about something else entirely.

Hansen's 3 model scenarios compared to temperature records from RSS (satellite) and GISS (surface). Graphic: Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit

In Dr. Hansen’s case, he’s been living the life of a scientist in the media spotlight since, giving thousands of interviews. He’s also taken on the role of activist during that time, getting himself arrested this year for obstructing a public highway.

He likely doesn’t remember this one interview he gave to a book author approximately 20 years ago, but fortunately that author recounted the interview on Salon.com. What is most interesting about this particular Hansen interview is that he dispenses with the usual models and graphs, and makes predictions about what will happen in 20 years to New York City, right in his own neighborhood. Sea level figures prominently.

Here’s the interview.

In a 2001 interview with author Rob Reiss about his upcoming book “Stormy Weather” Salon.com contributor Suzy Hansen (no apparent relation to Jim Hansen) asks some questions about his long path of research for the book. One of the questions centered around an interview of Dr. James Hansen by Reiss around 1988-1989. Red emphasis mine.

Extreme weather means more terrifying hurricanes and tornadoes and fires than we usually see. But what can we expect such conditions to do to our daily life?

While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, “If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?” He looked for a while and was quiet and didn’t say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, “Well, there will be more traffic.” I, of course, didn’t think he heard the question right. Then he explained, “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said, “There will be more police cars.” Why? “Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”

And so far, over the last 10 years, we’ve had 10 of the hottest years on record.

Didn’t he also say that restaurants would have signs in their windows that read, “Water by request only.”

Under the greenhouse effect, extreme weather increases. Depending on where you are in terms of the hydrological cycle, you get more of whatever you’re prone to get. New York can get droughts, the droughts can get more severe and you’ll have signs in restaurants saying “Water by request only.”

When did he say this will happen?

Within 20 or 30 years. And remember we had this conversation in 1988 or 1989.

Does he still believe these things?

Yes, he still believes everything. I talked to him a few months ago and he said he wouldn’t change anything that he said then.

I’ve saved the Salon.com web page as a PDF also, here, just in case it should be deleted. So not only did Dr. Hansen make the claims in the late 1980′s, he reaffirmed his predictions again in 2001.

The scenario of the interview with Dr. Hansen looking out his window and describing the changes he envisions 20 years into the future is very plausible. As we established yesterday, Dr. Hansen’s NASA GISS office at 2880 Broadway in NYC,  has a view of the Hudson River.

Here’s a Google Earth street level view of 2880 Broadway:

GISS is located right aboive "Monk's - Click for a larger image

The NASA GISS building at 2880 Broadway and 112th Street- The arrows indicate my guesses for offices of Dr. James Hansen and Dr, Gavin Schmidt - Click for a larger image

Using Google Earth, I can actually fly right up to (what I think is) Dr. Hansen’s window and recreate the view. (Note to anyone who worries, this info about the location is public domain information, published on the NASA GISS office website)

First let’s establish the location in traditional downlooking map style view at put Dr. Hansen’s line of sight on the image:

Click for a larger image

Click for a larger image

Here is a close in view, from further east on 112th street, just behind the GISS building looking northwest to the Hudson river. Google’s 3D buildings feature is used to recreate the buildings:

Click for a larger image

Click for a larger image

Here’s what the view from Dr. Hansen’s window at GISS looks like:

Click for a larger image

Click for a larger image

And finally, here is the view from the Hudson, looking back to the GISS building:

Click for a larger image

Click for a larger image

In the recounting of the interview by Rob Reiss, Hansen makes several claims about trees, birds, police cars, and crime. I can’t comment on those as I have no data. What I can comment on is this prediction by Dr. Hansen:

“The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water.”

As you can clearly see in the Google Earth images, the West Side Highway remains dry and open. Sea level (at which the Hudson River at that point becomes) is not encroaching on the highway. Note the date on the Google Earth timeline toolbar in the upper left. The aerial imagery was taken approximately 20 years later, on May 12th, 2008.

So much for local climate change predictions by the leading global authority on climate change.

Even if we give Dr. Hansen the benefit of 30 years, I’ll point out that satellite measured rate of change of global sea level has slowed significantly in the last few years, and is not likely to rise enough to meet Dr. Hansen’s prediction even 30 years out. See this story.

In fact using the University of Colorado interactive sea level plotting tool, we can see virtually no trend in the last 20 years:

Sea level plot - just off Manhattan Island - Graph: University of Colorado

Sea level plot - just off Manhattan Island - Graph: University of Colorado

You can reproduce it here at sealevel.colorado.edu

I wonder what Dr. Hansen thinks when he looks out that window today?

About these ads
This entry was posted in Alarmism, Forecasting, Opinion and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

161 Responses to A little known 20 40 year old climate change prediction by Dr. James Hansen – that failed will likely fail badly

  1. Gene Nemetz says:

    “If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?”

    “Ya, um, the most famous tv show ever will film lots of scenes right down there.”

    What a crazy prediction…wait, umm…..

  2. tokyoboy says:

    To err is human, to forgive divine….. up to a point though.

  3. Gene Nemetz says:

    To err is human, to forgive divine….. up to a point though.

    But he’s sticking with that err. Maybe, and I’m not being sarcastic, he’s a bit mad.

  4. kuhnkat says:

    “I wonder what Dr. Hansen thinks when he looks out that window today?”

    Just a little more [snip] alarmism and WE WIN!!!!!

  5. Gene Nemetz says:

    …in 1988 with his now famous “sweaty” testimony before Congress in June 1988. See more about the stagecraft….

    For those who still don’t believe this happened watch this video starting at 0:51

  6. “When did he say this will happen?”

    “Within 20 or 30 years. And remember we had this conversation in 1988 or 1989.”

    Okay, 9 or 10 years to go, at the outside.

  7. martin brumby says:

    I wouldn’t believe him if he predicted tomorrow was going to be Saturday (without checking a calendar three times).

  8. david alan says:

    Dr. James Hansen
    Premier Climatologist
    Author of: Storms of My Grandchildren
    National Launch Event For The Book
    Monday December 7 at 7:30   NEW DATE!
    Location: Wortham Center, Houston,Tx
    Originally scheduled for October 29, the event has been rescheduled because of temporary health issues of Dr. Hansen

    Health issues my ***. Dude writes a book and its obvious, no one cares. This event was suppose to be his big coming out party for his new book right before Copenhagen. Blah Blah Blah.
    I have to organize some kind of protest. That is if he even shows up.
    Any ideas? :p


    REPLY:
    a new date that will “live in infamy” – A

  9. Norm/Calgary says:

    “I wonder what Dr. Hansen thinks when he looks out that window today?”

    He’s probably wondering if his window opens [snip]

  10. April E. Coggins says:

    I have a theory about Hansen. He is off his rocker from his created global warming [snip]. If he would just admit his exaggeration and come clean, his conscience would be relieved and so would his tortured soul. [snip] It’s going to happen sooner or later, why not just admit the error before the house of cards comes down? We may laugh for a day or two but we won’t eat you. It can’t possibly be worse than what will happen if you don’t.

  11. Keith Minto says:

    Post modern climate science is sniffing the political winds ,battening down the hatches, firmly gripping the Capstan with clenched teeth as the cast and crew of the good ship AGW slowly sinks.
    There is a good German word for the pleasure in watching this unfold….Schadenfreude.

  12. david alan says:

    david alan (22:55:10) :

    REPLY: a new date that will “live in infamy” – A

    Holy Bat Buano Batman, that’s hilarious.

  13. Matt says:

    Does aybody else think he looks like a combed and shaven Denethor?

  14. FredG says:

    Hansen and all alarmists are counting on the cap-n-trade bill + the Copenhagen treaty to be adopted, then 5 years from now they’re gonna be celebrating victory, claiming that it worked and they saved the world.

    Watch.

  15. Michael hauber says:

    The prediction made in that paper was that the average temperature would warm to above 0.4 degrees ‘within the next few years’. The significance being that he considereed 0.4 degrees to be the maximum climate variation likely due to natural variation, and that if it warmed up past this point that would be a clear sign that something not natural was going on. He calculated 0.4 degrees as the threshold based on the 20th century temperature history, and on the models output.

    It would be interesting to know if any skeptics pointed out at that stage that natural climate variation could take temperatures above 0.4 degrees, or if this claim has only been made recently after that amount of warming was observed.

    The actual forcings since he made this climate projection have been quite close to scenario B. The scenario B projection was made on a climate sensitivity of 4.2 degrees, and in the same paper he claimed a climate sensitivity is likely to be between 2.5 and 5. So it is interesting to note that his model was running towards the upper end of what he considered the likely sensitivity. If you use 2.5 to 5 to estimate an error bar on scenario B, this would put the bottom of the error bar just below 0.5, and current temperatures close to the bottom of the error bar.

    So are current temperatures close to this low end because climate sensitivity to CO2 is actually at the low end of what Hansen considered reasonable? Or are temperatures at the low end because Hansen’s projection did not include cooling due to the now negative PDO and the current strong solar minimum?

  16. Leon Brozyna says:

    An object lesson in embracing and holding onto a belief system in the face of evidence which contradicts that belief system. The greater the amount of evidence which contradicts the belief system, the more shrill are the voices raised to defend that belief system. Whatever else it may be, the AGW belief system has long since lost is claim to the mantle of science.

  17. Landin says:

    In the novel Atlas Shrugged, the State Science Institute worked with the government to hide truth. State Science Institute scientists claimed Reardon Metal was dangerous and would harm society, when in fact Reardon Metal was one of the greatest inventions of all time bound to vastly improve society.

    Eerily, today we have institutions of science working with the government to hide truth. They claim CO2 is dangerous and will harm society, when in fact CO2 is a harmless trace gas necessary for life on Earth, that improves society by helping enable more productive crops.

    What happened to those who hid the truth in Atlas Shrugged? They were exposed as frauds and their institutions imploded.

    Truth can never be hidden forever.

  18. rbateman says:

    I wonder what Dr. Hansen thinks when he looks out that window today?

    It’s near impossible to tell if he is being totally stubborn, is putting on a face, or he really does see those things when he looks out there.
    How would we know what he thinks if he has not confided to someone what his doubts about this are, if he has any?

  19. FredG says:

    p.s. Anthony, are you trying to intimidate Hansen by posting the exact address of his workplace?

    While I don’t really care what happens to Hansen, it seems a bit much to point out his office window. There might be some lunatics out there taking aim.

    REPLY: I’m not doing anything that GISS already doesn’t do on their own web page. They give the address and directions to their office, pictures of the building, and even a description of the entrance. See the GISS web page here: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/about/visiting/

    It has been made public by them, well before I did. – Anthony

  20. Gerard says:

    We have a much respected science reporter and scientist Robin Williams who works for the government broadcaster Australian Broadcasting Commission who predicted sea levels would rise by 100m by the end of the century due to climate change. I am pretty sure Tim Flannery made similar predictions.

  21. Michael hauber says:

    And yes its also probably fair to acknowledge that it does appear that Hansen overestimated the likely impacts of sea level rise over a 20-30 year period, although being always skeptical of the ‘skeptic’ claims I would always want to hear the other side of the story before being sure…

  22. Roger Sowell says:

    Here’s the sea level history for just offshore New York City, from sealevel.colorado.edu. Not much rise in that sea level since 1994 to now. In fact, the present sea level is below the “norm,” by about 5 cm.

    http://tinypic.com/r/315ejpk/4

    REPLY
    : Thanks Roger, I forgot about the UC sea level interactive tool, I’ve added it to the story. – Anthony

  23. Ecotretas says:

    It would be great if a (sub)site would record all these predictions. Like Prince Charles, WWF, Hansens, etc, who all predict we’ll have something very bad things in x years, or so. Does anybody know of such site, or should we start a new one?

    Ecotretas

  24. Robert E. Phelan says:

    I drove over the former west-side highway a couple of weeks ago. The bow-wave from my 1988 Mazda B3000 pick-up truck was truly exceptional… had to avoid a couple of kayackers trying to paddle up 112th Street…. I think one of them was Gavin…. gave me the finger as I headed toward downtown and the Theater District…. in my wake I heard something about “Yuppie oil-company financed environmental criminal… ! ”

    I smiled.

  25. Kath says:

    Is there a website anywhere that lists all the predictions & pronouncements made by climate scientists and others? It would be nice to see such predictions listed against real observations.

  26. brrrrr says:

    He’ll just deny his past like stephen scheider did with the ice age thing

  27. Nigel S says:

    david alan (22:55:10) and REPLY

    “Infamy! Infamy! They’ve all got it in for me!”

    Kenneth Williams as Julius Caesar in ‘Carry On Cleo’ 1964.

  28. Luboš Motl says:

    Does he actually believe that the road is under water now? Or does he believe that 2009 has still not arrived? These detailed questions would normally decide which pavilion in the mental asylum he should be placed into.

  29. michel says:

    Equally dire predictions were issued in Britain yesterday by the Foreign Secretary. When the history of this thing is written, I predict that these predictions will have a chapter to themselves, how they were justified, who issued them, the evidence behind them….

    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/government-launches-map-to-highlight-global-warming-threat-1807237.html

  30. Geronimo says:

    Michael hauber: It wasn’t just sea levels he got wrong, I haven’t been to New York in a while but I’m sure if any of the forecasts he made below have come to pass I’d have heard of them:

    “Then he explained, “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said, “There will be more police cars.” Why? “Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.””

    You are quite right to be sceptical about sceptics, I am myself, even though I lean towards scepticism.

  31. Just The Facts says:

    From 350.org’s invitation for a day of climate action on Oct 24th:
    “A year ago, our greatest climatologist—NASA’s James Hansen—and his team produced a landmark series of studies. They showed that if we let the amount of carbon in the atmosphere top 350 parts per million, we can’t have a planet “similar to the one on which civilization developed and to which life on earth is adapted.”
    http://www.350.org/invitation

    For some reason I doubt that’s how history is going to remember him…

  32. david alan says:

    Landin (23:34:34) :

    “In the novel Atlas Shrugged, the State Science Institute worked with the government to hide truth.”
    Im told, also, that ‘Atlas Shrugged’ is suppose to be a blueprint of the rise of the Illuminati to a NWO.
    So what happens next? (I am so gonna get snipt for makin a conspiracy theory comment, I just know it.)

  33. Barry Foster says:

    I must admit that, like others, I am beginning to doubt this man’s sanity.

  34. Robert E. Phelan says:

    Sorry… it’s a 1998 B3000… in 1988 the model was probably called a “B30″…

  35. Jason S. says:

    Hansen has a Kramer’esk look to me now that WUWT drew out the Sienfield relationship. Someone pleeeease super impose Kramer’s hair on Hansen. Something like the Yoda/ Greenspan morph from CNN Money years ago :)

    http://money.cnn.com/2005/05/26/news/economy/fed_bonds/greenspan_yoda.03.jpg

  36. janama says:

    Another nutter has arisen. This one is going to join the Green Party and run for the seat of Higgins in Melbourne.

    http://www.clivehamilton.net.au/cms/media/documents/articles/rsa_lecture.pdf

  37. Neville says:

    Isn’t this the same embecile who doubles as gore’s guru, surely someone in the msm will take up this story and expose the delusional fool.

  38. Rhys Jaggar says:

    Today’s Independent in the UK has an absolutely RIDICULOUS map of ‘temperature rises by 2060′. They’re saying increases of 15C in the Arctic and 6-8C everywhere else.

    As usual in a newspaper, it doesn’t say what the baseline is.

    But it’s supposed to be an IPCC ‘prediction’.

    Not surprisingly, a UK Govt Minister was trumping it.

    After all, as they got the economic predictions so spectacularly wrong, why do you think they would back climate guff unless it were precisely that, eh??

  39. David Walton says:

    Query: What is the difference between Richard C. Hoagland and Dr. James Hansen?

    Answer: Hansen has never been interviewed by Art Bell.

  40. Demesure says:

    “I wonder what Dr. Hansen thinks when he looks out that window today?”

    “I’m grilled”, he’d say.

  41. D. Ch. says:

    In the tradition of “a solution exists”, Hansen should run for public office before it becomes obvious exactly how wrong his predictions have been. Nobody bothers to check up on how well politicians’ old predictions pan out (because what they say is assumed to have only the loosest of connections to the truth and what they really think), so once he changes his official media category from scientist to politician by running for office multiple times or maybe even winning an election, he’s home free and can look forward to an honorable retirement …

  42. Kaj L says:

    You call this

    http://www.realclimate.org/images/Hansen06_fig2.jpg

    a “prediction that failed badly” proves only that you don’t understand what you are talking about.

    REPLY: No you’ve got it wrong, you didn’t read the whole article apparently. I’m talking about the fact that Hansen said in 1988/89 “The West Side Highway would be under water in 20 years”, and reaffirmed the prediction in 2001. It is clearly not. His prediction of sea level rise failed badly. – A

  43. tty says:

    Gerard (23:36:03) :

    Did Robin Williams say where the water was coming from? There isn’t that much water in all the icecaps of the World, including East Antarctica.

  44. Boudu says:

    Matt says:
    October 22, 2009 at 11:19 pm
    Does aybody else think he looks like a combed and shaven Denethor?

    That would explain it. He’s lost his mind conferring with the Dark Lord Gore through his IPCC Palantir.

    But fear not for Watts the White and Ranger MacIntyre are on their way while the halflings of public opinion are ready to toss the ring of AGW power into the very Cracks of Doom !

    What a movie that would make !

  45. Caleb says:

    “Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive.”

    Sir Walter Scott

    What angers me about Dr. Hansen is not that he made an incorrect forecast, nor that he has strong beliefs. What angers me is that he knowingly participated in deceit, and in attacking those who sought to get at the truth.

    As soon as one accepts this “the ends justify the means” mentality one has let go of truth. Usually one does it because they have a very low opinion of the general public’s ability to do the right thing, and usually one imagines one is abandoning truth for the “general good” of the public, however falsehood tends become a malignancy, and eventually destroys those who give up on truth.

    However, if you stand by truth, truth stands by you. This occurs even if every person on earth is enamored by a falsehood, simply because truth cannot help but be true. It is for this reason some capitalize the “t,” and speak of Truth, and even dare suggest Truth is an animate thing, and can snow on Al Gore whenever he dares ignores It.

    I am not counting on Truth hitting Copenhagen with a howling blizzard when Obama goes over there, and I am fairly sure Obama will sign the treaty even if glaciers come grinding down Copenhagen’s streets. I am even cynical about Congress, and fear they will ratify the treaty even if we have the worst winter in twenty years.

    The question then becomes, can we break the treaty?

    I think Hansen, Briffa, Mann, and the IPPC offer us a great opportunity to tear up the treaty into little bitty shreds, even if we have signed it. All we need to say is that it was signed under false pretences.

    In which case we may be glad those fellows were such blatant scoundrels.

    However I’ll be writing my representatives, and doing my best to urge that the treaty isn’t ratified.

  46. avogte says:

    It would be informative if this article could be updated to add Hanssen´s 1988 CO2 prediction (ppm vs time) associated with each scenario. And of course overlaid with the actual CO2 observations for the same period.

  47. Angry Exile says:

    @ ecotretas and Kath. The same thought about collecting hard predictions that specify dates occurred to me recently. I’ve started to blog ‘em as I hear about ‘em, though as my blog isn’t especially about warming alarmism (more therapeutic ranting and swearing to be honest) it’s not like I spend much time looking. So far I’ve got:

    * “Imminently” – loss of world’s coral reefs – David Attenborough
    * Late 2013 – ice free Arctic – Al Gore
    * 2014 – unrecoverable disaster and generally everything banjaxed – WWF.
    * Dec 2016 – unrecoverable disaster and everything banjaxed again ;-) – Prince Charles and the 100 months people
    * Late 2019 – ice free Arctic again ;-) – Pen Hadow
    * Late 2029 – loss of Great Barrier Reef – marine scientist Charlie Veron, who probably should have got together with David Attenborough and compared notes.

    I’m going to link to this story and add to the list the inundation of West Side Highway as something that should already have happened or at least really look like it’s about to.

  48. Donald (Australia) says:

    GERARD, since when has Robyn Williams been a “much respected” science reporter, and a “scientist”, for heaven’s sake?

    His reporting has seen him scorned and laughed at as “100- metres- Williams” .
    Unlike a genuine scientist, he does not entertain any hypothesis other than AGW, and I have never heard him outline any of the multitude of data which does not support AGW.

    As for being a scientist, please let us know his published papers! You must be joking.

    Mr Williams is very keen to tell anyone he has friends who are real, real scientists – he even proudly recalled ringing one in the UK, on the ABC (Aus.) panel program following a showing of the film sceptical of Al Gore’s “science”.
    !

  49. Yarmy says:

    ‘…you’ll have signs in restaurants saying “Water by request only.”’

    Climate predictions don’t come more terrifying than that. Please won’t anybody think of the children.

  50. Bob Tisdale says:

    NOAA’s tide station-based Sea Level data for New York’s Battery Park (Southern tip of Manhattan)…
    http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8518750
    …shows a 2.77mm/yr trend, with no obvious acceleration in recent decades.

  51. Logan says:

    New readers might find the list of philosophical quotations from various bigwigs at http://www.green-agenda.com/ helpful in understanding the source of climate propaganda. Add a large dose of pure cynicism to understand the cap-and-tax garbage.

  52. ReKem says:

    Maybe a stupid question but when i look to the graphic i see 3 sudden rises in the temperature. One in approximately 1975(0,25), one in approximately 1985(0,50) and one in approximately 1995(0,25). Is it possible that the NASA updated their systems in these years. Or mabe got a better system or a new satellite or more corver over the world at these years?

  53. Patrick Davis says:

    “Yarmy (01:28:19) :

    ‘…you’ll have signs in restaurants saying “Water by request only.”’

    Climate predictions don’t come more terrifying than that. Please won’t anybody think of the children.”

    I am not sure if this was tounge-in-cheek, but more children and people have died at the hands of our leaders, dictators, tyrants and politicians than ever have from natuaral causes or any measureable ACC.

    An example is in WW1, politicians decided arm Allied soldiers with a French made weapon, when there was a far superior weapon available at the same time. At least 100,000 soldiers died because of that decision.

    If you want to be afraid for our children, be afraid of the policy decisions made by our politicians.

  54. Simon says:

    Jim Hansen, isn’t he a muppet?

  55. P Gosselin says:

    Mojib Latif’s presentation in Geneva in early September.

    Cooling is coming. (But then followed by runaway warming).

  56. marcus25 says:

    Michael hauber (23:32:04) :

    “It would be interesting to know if any skeptics pointed out ”

    Michael hauber,
    the sceptics needn’t to point out anything.

    In truth, the sceptics would have never even made a fuss of this “CC” non event, since it is in the natural scheme of things.

    It’s the warmers who made it into such an overblown issue.

  57. Jimbo versus the Volcano

    Hansen got one prediction right… Scenario “A”accurately predicted the Mauna Loa CO2 curve.

  58. Ed Fix says:

    “I wonder what Dr. Hansen thinks when he looks out that window today?”

    I’m sure what he thinks today is, “Within 20 or 30 years…The West Side Highway will be under water.”

    When Hansen calcifies his opinions, they’re calcified.

  59. JLKrueger says:

    Neville (00:40:25) :

    Isn’t this the same imbecile who doubles as gore’s guru, surely someone in the msm will take up this story and expose the delusional fool.

    Sadly the MSM won’t do anything to expose their delusional tool. They’re in on the scam.

  60. Nigel S says:

    He was right about crime, look at all the f**** being committed in our names because the temperature has failed to rise fast enough.

  61. Mike M. says:

    Heh. Lubos. I see the death train.

  62. Bruce Cobb says:

    rbateman (23:34:51) :

    I wonder what Dr. Hansen thinks when he looks out that window today?

    Perhaps something along the lines of “if I were to jump now, would I be missed? Darn. Need to see about getting my Prozac prescription level increased.”

  63. Rick K says:

    “Ecotretas (23:50:20) :

    “It would be great if a (sub)site would record all these predictions. Like Prince Charles, WWF, Hansens, etc, who all predict we’ll have something very bad things in x years, or so. ”

    Here’s one I remember: In 1988 Ted Danson (from the TV show “Cheers”) predicted that we only had 10 years to live because the oceans were going to be dead in 10 years.

    Such brilliant stupidity.

  64. Skeptic Tank says:

    He lived right upstairs from Monk’s (i.e., Tom’s) Restaurant in Seinfeld?!!

    … and wasn’t there another reference to that same restaurant here on WUWT within the past few days?

  65. WestHoustonGeo says:

    Quoting:
    “We have a much respected science reporter and scientist Robin Williams…who predicted sea levels would rise by 100m by the end of the century due to climate change. ”

    Commenting:
    We have a Robin Williams in the U.S. He says silly things all the time, too.

  66. groweg says:

    Its good that Anthony points out the inaccurate bordering on absurd predictions of Jim Hanson. It shows that having a Ph.D. in a scientific discipline does not mean that you should be regarded as an infallible authority even in your area of specialization. It is a counterbalance to the warmist’s tactic of arrogating the mantle of science to intimidate and silence any opposition.

  67. Geoff Sherrington says:

    Yarmy (01:28:19) :
    ‘…you’ll have signs in restaurants saying “Water by request only.”’

    Be careful of water. Fish fornicate in it.

  68. RexAlan says:

    Just love the first picture. Look at the guy on the right… I’m sure he’s thinking is this for real: you’ve got to be kidding.

  69. Rick K says:

    I wonder when Jim Hansen will move his office to the top of a taller building to get away from the encroaching tide?

  70. Don S. says:

    @Robt Phelan. Great mental images from your post. Too bad you weren’t driving an F350 or a Dodge dualie, towing an RV bigger than most New York apartments. The bow wave might have crested at the corner of Broadway and 112th. Those are eco-friendly trucks, by the way. Diesels, you know.

  71. Don S. says:

    @Simon. No. He’s a muppeteer. We are the muppets.

  72. Indiana Bones says:

    Leon Brozyna (23:32:07) :
    An object lesson in embracing and holding onto a belief system in the face of evidence which contradicts that belief system. The greater the amount of evidence which contradicts the belief system, the more shrill are the voices raised to defend that belief system. Whatever else it may be, the AGW belief system has long since lost is claim to the mantle of science.

    Which makes one wonder… If the proponents of religious frugality labelled “climate change” had ever considered the truth? You’d think that honest altruists need not trade in fabrication – if their aim is true (Elvis.) Why not come out and say, “We want you to donate 1-2% of GNP to developing countries.” These are people who didn’t listen when their father instructed them to tell the truth.

    And knowing that abundance actually tempers lifestyles – witness population stablization in middle class – why attempt to retard technology yielding abundance?

    The human race is about to learn it is not the only flawed intelligence in the universe. Sorry ET.

    Had

  73. Tim Clark says:

    “I wonder what Dr. Hansen thinks when he looks out that window today?”

    James Hansen: “My dear Mr. Watts, an underlying model assumption when I made that prediction was increasing silt load caused by human disturbance of the natural environment due to increasing urbanization would cause significantly increased silt load leading to siltation and an elevated river bottom, which would raise the water level. However those damned environmental nutcases (EPA included) passed all those laws like construction barricades, zoning restrictions, and other soil conservation practices in the watershed and I didn’t get the erosion I needed. How was I to know other factors were involved. It’s so damn complicated to predict into the future. Why didn’t they outlaw dredging, stirring up the muck and such. But I get the last laugh, hehehe… I still got my UHI.

  74. Geoff Sherrington says:

    For Ecotretas
    “It would be great if a (sub)site would record all these predictions. Like Prince Charles, WWF, Hansens, etc, who all predict we’ll have something very bad things in x years, or so. Does anybody know of such site, or should we start a new one?”

    Already done by a Brit. See

    http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

  75. Frank K. says:

    “You call this

    http://www.realclimate.org/images/Hansen06_fig2.jpg

    a “prediction that failed badly” proves only that you don’t understand what you are talking about.”

    Why do the land+sea data stop in 2005? It’s nearly 2010 now…

    Hansen’s 1988 climate code eventually morphed in Model E, so the legend lives on…

  76. tallbloke says:

    If I remember correctly, scenario C is for a big reduction in co2. Since this has turned out to be the most accurate of Jim’s scenarios, despite the ongoing rise of co2, it seems reasonable to conclude that it supports the view that :

    1) Climate sensitivitry is overblown by his models
    2) Co2 doesn’t make any difference to temperature

  77. Craig W says:

    I’ll make a prediction: In 20 to 30 years a bottle of scotch made today will be outstanding.

    Out of curiosity, how old is that building? Has it been properly insulated? Have the windows been replaced? Where is Jim hiding the solar panels … has NASA invented a cloaking device?

  78. Tom in Florida says:

    “Didn’t he also say that restaurants would have signs in their windows that read, “Water by request only.” ”

    Don’t know about New York these days but that is common in my part of Florida. Unfortunately for Dr Hansen the real reason for being careful with our water here is due to overdevelopment. Overdevelopment? In a place that is warmer than the global average temperature? Apparently people like warm.

  79. hunter says:

    It is long past time to roll up the apocalyptic clap trap of Hansen and his entourage and send them packing.

  80. Clive says:

    Thanks for this item. Good find. It is amazing how these people can continue and still be believed; continue to get a salary; and not have to answer for their absurd and immoral actions. What a crime.

    Regarding inaccurate prophesies. In March/April 1990, David Lees wrote an item about our David Suzuki. (The Man Who Cries Wolf, will David Suzuki warn us about the environment once too often?, Harrowsmith pgs 34-44.) I have this article in PDF if anyone wants it. Norm?

    Here is part of the Lees article:
    In one of his last columns in the Globe, Suzuki quoted Ehrlich’s view of public apathy about the perils of economic growth … A few weeks later, when the Star began to publish the column, Ehrlich was featured in it regularly. “Ehrlich concludes that it would be a dangerous miscalculation to look to technology for the answer to [environmental problems]. Scientific analysis points toward the need for a quasi-religious transformation of contemporary culture.” … and three weeks after that [Suzuki wrote], “Stanford University ecologist Paul Ehrlich reminds us that … we face a ‘billion environmental Pearl Harbors all at once.’ ” On December 2, Suzuki wrote, “We no longer have the luxury of time … when people like Paul Ehrlich of Stanford University …tell us we only have a decade to turn things around.” And in his Christmas column on December 13, Suzuki wrote, “As eminent ecologist Paul Ehrlich says, ‘the solution to ecocatastrophe is quasi-religious.’” This was in 1990.

    All of the predictions from twenty years ago have failed. (The IPCC claims of sea level rise in their first report were grossly wrong.) How do we get MSM to grasp this nonsense and start ripping apart the AGW fanaticism?

    Screw it! I am going fishing. ☺

    Clive

  81. Did Al Gore sponsor him back in 1988-89?, how did he appear on the scene then?, who were his mentors?. It would be interesting to know the origins of this crazy issue.

  82. Mark Bowlin says:

    I wonder what Dr. Hansen thinks when he looks out that window today?

    He’s a zealot. He thinks, “why can’t the world see it as clearly as I? What do I need to do to make them understand? I know now that my predictions then were off, I mean, I took a cab down that damn highway the other night. But I got it nailed now, man, and I just need to convince them. They don’t know, but I do. Maybe in Houston, they’ll believe. Houston? Aw crap, fat chance of that. They’re all on big oil’s payroll down there. What moron scheduled this for Big Oil City? I need to fire my publicist; those Texans can be a tough crowd. It’s okay, it’s alway hot down there (I hope Gore’s not around or it’ll snow). Take a deep breath, no sense worrying…I wonder if the restaurant has any pudding….”

  83. Yarmy says:

    Geoff Sherrington (05:31:11) :
    http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

    Ha ha. That is magnificent and has made my day. You should let people assign a degree of daftness to them and make an anomaly graph. I predict an unprecedented increase in prior to Copenhagen.

  84. Roger Knights says:

    Patrick Davis (02:20:01) :

    “An example is in WW1, politicians decided arm Allied soldiers with a French made weapon, when there was a far superior weapon available at the same time. At least 100,000 soldiers died because of that decision.”

    I’m curious about that–could you provide more detail?

  85. sabril says:

    Technical note: North of 72nd street, what is known as the “West Side Highway” is actually the Henry Hudson Parkway.

    Even if sea levels did rise as much as Hansen predicted, how hard would it be to protect the Parkway with levees; dykes; landfill; and trestles? Probably not too hard.

    Anyway, are you sure that the Hudson river is at sea level at 112th street? It’s still a good ways to the Atlantic Ocean.

  86. Mike86 says:

    >david alan:

    At the end of “Atlas Shrugged” pretty much everything is shutting down and chaos is taking over. The smart guys are mostly retiring to their little community in the mountains to let the rest of mankind turn off the last lights. There’s also a really long speech by Gault that rehashes the book’s main premise. Basically, if you’re willing to roll up your sleeves, work hard, think, and you’re not looking for a handout (moocher) or shaking someone down (taker – read government in general), you’re OK.

    The smart guys would be willing to help put things back together, but only on their terms. “Moral” causes (and have you noticed how many things today are being justified by “moral” causes?) are considered by these guys as just a way to guilt you into going along with the takers and support the moochers.

    Other than the good guys not losing, the book doesn’t come to a clean resolution and a few threads are left hanging. If you haven’t read “Atlas Shrugged”, you should. Just to see where some of the references come from, if nothing else. There’s also an interview with Ayn Rand and Mike Wallace on YouTube (I think there’s three parts) that has some interesting perspectives.

  87. H.R. says:

    “I wonder what Dr. Hansen thinks when he looks out that window today?”

    My guess… “Memo to self: have trousers hemmed up 50mm so cuffs won’t get wet.”

  88. Mike Kelly says:

    If he was believed by the organization that employs him why haven’t they moved from that building? Knowing what was coming would it have been prudent to move somewhere more sheltered from wind, far from rising water and no police tapes.

    It proves that these people don’t really believe what they say.

  89. Mark Fawcett says:

    Rhys Jaggar (00:41:06) :

    Today’s Independent in the UK has an absolutely RIDICULOUS map of ‘temperature rises by 2060′. They’re saying increases of 15C in the Arctic and 6-8C everywhere else.

    As usual in a newspaper, it doesn’t say what the baseline is.

    Link to this here: http://environment.independentminds.livejournal.com/183634.html

    Interestingly, the balance of comments is somewhat in favour of “stop the bullsh*t, CO2 isn’t the problem” – nice. So now I’ve seen this effect on the Independent’s comments, the Times’ comments and even the Observer’s comments pages (well some of them). If this carries on then it’s (hopefully) a matter of time before the journalists start to realise they’re losing their public and start to do some _real_ investigative journalism…

    Cheers

    Mark.

  90. Michael Lenaghan says:

    The author’s name is Bob Reiss (not Rob Reiss). And the title of his book is “The Coming Storm: Extreme Weather and Our Terrifying Future” (not “Stormy Weather”). (“Stormy Weather” was the title of the Salon article.)

  91. MattN says:

    “If I remember correctly, scenario C is for a big reduction in co2. ”

    Scenario “C” was a ficticious scenario where CO2 was held constant at Y2K levels.

  92. MattN says:

    IIRC, Scenario “B” was determined by Hansen to be “most probable”. We aren’t even in the ballpark of Scenario “B”.

  93. Richard M says:

    I’ll make another prediction. We will soon be invaded by Hansen supporters.

  94. dan Bailey says:

    “I’ll point out that satellite measurement of global sea level has slowed significantly in the last few years”

    Satellite measurement has slowed significantly? Did we lose some? Did the speed of light change? Does Einsteins theory no longer hold? .

    just kidding. But really, please revise the sentence to be more accurate.

  95. R Taylor says:

    A delusional scientist might be a minor, sad story. The story becomes major when the US Congress invites the delusional scientist to testify that rational opponents “should be tried for high crimes against humanity.” The story becomes tragic if the US Congress passes legislation with profound economic consequences based on delusional science.

  96. Myron Mesecke says:

    Dr. James Hansen
    Premier Climatologist
    Author of: Storms of My Grandchildren
    National Launch Event For The Book
    Monday December 7 at 7:30 NEW DATE!
    Location: Wortham Center, Houston,Tx

    I instead invite people in Houston to travel the 160 miles to Temple, TX and enjoy the Christmas parade that evening. Starts at 6:30. Parade theme is Christmas in the Forties. No predictions on what the weather might be like unless Al Gore shows up!

  97. matt v. says:

    I wonder if Dr Hansen is thinking in the same mode as the Met Office to come up with such high warming forecasts only

    In reviewing the latest Met Office climate projections of 4C by 2060, I was amazed by the almost straight line temperature anomaly projection with no flat or cooling periods shown anywhere. They claim that 10 year flat temperature increases or cooling periods are possible but are projected only as one in every 8 decades. This is rather a dramatic departure from the observed historical fluctuating curve of the 20 Th Century where cooler periods happened quite frequently and major cycles of 20-30 years of flat temperatures or cooling happen about every 20-30 years. In looking further into the Met Office forecasting programme UKCP09, I note

    AMO effect seems to be excluded
    NAO effect is not captured their models
    MOC effect is assumed to weaken in response to warming from greenhouse gases by as much as 50% in some periods[ they even talk about a possible shutdown of MOC]
    PDO is not mentioned
    El Nino/La Nina effects seem to be included but how frequently and at what amplitude is not clear

    It seems that in their computer simulations, the effect of greenhouse gases dominate and all natural variability effects are minor. No wonder they only project unprecedented warming for this winter, for the next decade and for the next 50years. It is like modeling the energy of your house but ignoring what happens outside [winter or summer].They now claim that the entire 20th century base warming curve[0.7 C trend rise] is due to man generated greenhouse gases and only the swings of high and low are due to natural or internal variability

    Has anyone else looked into these models in terms of what they include or exclude?

    http://ukclimateprojections.defra.gov.uk/content/view/2090/517/
    http://ukclimateprojections.defra.gov.uk/content/view/2108/517/
    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

  98. Steve Keohane says:

    tallbloke (05:36:41) Exactly, another diverging correlation, like some proxies these days. See Loehle’s post a few days ago. When you fake the temperature(heat), nothing correlates anymore. No wonder the same minds can’t create a model that works.

  99. Gene Nemetz says:

    REPLY: a new date that will “live in infamy” – A

    Obscurity might be the right word.

  100. philincalifornia says:

    “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water.”

    The moronicity of this comment is astounding, but then so is the entire Stern report in this regard.

    New Yorkers are just going to watch the water lap over the highway going “Duh, if only someone had invented concrete” ??

  101. Henry chance says:

    Enron was the primary under writer for hansen.

    I want water in NYC.. Canals like venice? How romantic. I can take my love on a gondola to Avery fisher hall and hear my teen in concert.

    How soon can we have these canals?

  102. Steve S. says:

    The fact is no matter how many failed predictions, model flaws, contradictions, blatant lies, institutional misrepresentations and refutations pile up millions of leftists who joined this movement do NOT care if AGW is real or not.

    Their many causes hitching a ride on the AGW train must move forward.
    Therefore they will not allow their leaders to be discredited with a loss of credibility and positions of power.
    You see they don’t see ANY downside to “implementation”.
    Exhibit A.
    http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=1345

    “I believe there are wonderful solutions to AGW that could lead us into this world. The technology is here. It’s just a matter of implementing it.

    For example, we can get greater savings AND freedom by going off the grid with solar and wind and other alt power. We can have the freedom of more choice if affordable electric cars are available (in my area, please). There is the biochar solution. With the more affordable unit ( http://www.youtube.com/user/rechar350#p/a/u/2/kRQuF4d9DBo ), nearly every farm could become more productive and save money while drawing down CO2. City garbage could be made into biochar, etc. And there are a host of other really great solutions that not only save us money, but give us greater freedom. Imagine what marvels we could come up with if more people really put their minds to it. This AGW mitigation project is not only money saving and freedom enhancing, it is spiritually uplifting, mentally and emotionally invigorating and positive.”

  103. Henry chance says:

    Years ago I went sailing near Sandusky Ohio. We passed a McDonalds that had a drive up and also boat docks in the back. I see opportunity. I am not afraid of change. In Asia a lot of housing and commerce is on the water. Awesome opportunity.

    The flats in Cleveland have boat docks at the restaurnats. clear lake texas has an on water complex. landry’s. The intercoastal in florida has a lot of water accessible businesses.

  104. Jon Jewett says:

    To:
    Roger Knights (06:32:32) :

    for a question on remarks by

    Patrick Davis (02:20:01) :

    Roger,

    I would not presume to speak for Patrick, but (I will anyway!) he may have been talking about the French Chauchat (pronounced Sho-Sho by the Yanks) light machine gun of WWI.

    But, the 100,000 dead may be hyperbole.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chauchat

    Regards,

    Steamboat Jack

  105. Bill Sticker says:

    Another entry to cross off in the Apocalypse sweepstake. Plenty more predictions where that came from.

  106. Enduser says:

    Tried to send this via “Tips and Notes”, but it was not working for me. For some reason there was no “Leave a comment box.”

    Anthony, you might wish to reword the following statement as seen in the article:

    “I’ll point out that satellite measurement of global sea level has slowed significantly in the last few years, and is not likely to rise enough to meet Dr. Hansen’s prediction even 30 years out.”

    It appears to say that it’s the MEASUREMENT has slowed down, when I think you mean that the rate of increase in sea level has slowed down.

    REPLY: Good catch, I’ve made the appropriate change. – A

  107. hotrod says:

    Tom in Florida (05:51:28) :

    “Didn’t he also say that restaurants would have signs in their windows that read, “Water by request only.” ”

    Don’t know about New York these days but that is common in my part of Florida. Unfortunately for Dr Hansen the real reason for being careful with our water here is due to overdevelopment. Overdevelopment? In a place that is warmer than the global average temperature? Apparently people like warm.

    The same happened in severe droughts in the west about the time that prediction was made. California had severe drought conditions in 1976-77, and again in the late 1980′s. As mentioned in the second link below, the droughts are believed to be caused by cooliing in the Pacific which reduces precipitation across the western U.S. and may have been responsible for the destruction of the Anasazi civilization in the period from 800-1300 AD. The entire western U.S. is subject to prolonged drought conditions depending on prevailing wind patterns, and the amount of moisture carried off the Pacific by those winds. In Colorado some of our heaviest precipitation comes from Gulf moisture, especially as hurricanes move inland off the gulf. In season where that moisture flow off the gulf fails we have the sort of conditions that can lead to dust bowl conditions if soil erosion by wind is not controlled by proper farm practices. Some of the classic dust bowl pictures were taken in extreme south east Colorado.

    See blackblizzard picture in link below.
    http://www.weru.ksu.edu/new_weru/multimedia/dustbowl/dustbowlpics.html

    California drought
    http://geochange.er.usgs.gov/sw/impacts/hydrology/state_fd/cawater1.html

    http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/2009/05/08/decoding-californias-drought-history/

    =============

    Roger Knights (06:32:32) :
    Patrick Davis (02:20:01) :

    “An example is in WW1, politicians decided arm Allied soldiers with a French made weapon, when there was a far superior weapon available at the same time. At least 100,000 soldiers died because of that decision.”

    I’m curious about that–could you provide more detail?

    It was a political decision to use the French Chauchat (probably the worst machinegun ever designed. Parts were so poorly manufactured you could not swap parts from one gun to another because they were selectively assembled to get the guns to work. Meanwhile the American BAR was not issued to our own troops even though it is considered to be one of the best designs of the period (it was still in use in WWII and Korea)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chauchat

    Larry

  108. Fred from Canuckistan . . . says:

    ““I wonder what Dr. Hansen thinks when he looks out that window today?””

    He can’t see out his window . . . he taped it over so the high winds caused by global warming wouldn’t break the glass.

  109. Joel says:

    Hansen is not insane, he is merely a fool.

  110. Duncan says:

    Using google earth to reproduce the view from his office is pretty funny, but all the pics of his office building, his putative window, the front door… kinda strikes me as a little creepy.

    About that graph at the top of the post: the red line was Hansen’s business-as-normal line, right? How have global CO2 emissions risen, compared to the assumptions that drove the red line?

    REPLY:I can see your concern but I’m not doing anything that GISS already doesn’t do on their own web page. They give the address and directions to their office, pictures of the building, and even a description of the entrance. See the GISS web page here: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/about/visiting/ I’m simply drawing on that published info to prove a point.

    It is a publicly funded institution, its not a private business or residence. Plus the details of what the build looks like and how to get there been made public by them, well before I did. If I hadn’t shown the line of sight it could be argued that “the story was fabricated, Hansen can’t see the Hudson from his office.” – Anthony

  111. Reed Coray says:

    I wonder what Dr. Hansen thinks when he looks out that window today?

    The question makes an unwarranted assumption–specifically, that Dr. Hansen thinks.

  112. skip hockman says:

    Remember that the great eco-activist Ted Danson told us about 12 years ago that we only had 10 years to clean up the oceans or all aquatic life would be gone. Correction: an actor could never come up with “aquatic”… he said “sea-life”.

  113. hunter says:

    Duncan,
    What is creepy is that from an office perched above what was used as a comedy show backdrop, a very unfunny joke is being perpetrated on the world.
    Hansen has not made one correct prediction about climate behavior, yet this government bureaucrat- who has never been seriously interviewed or challenged- is selling massive, costly and injurious policy changes to the US and the world.

  114. Chris says:

    The green line was the business as usual case (if I recall correctly) that involved some minor reductions in the growth of CO2 emissions (e.g., higher fuel efficiency, wind power, better heat conservation in buildings, etc.). The red line was the worse case. Hansen in 1988 did not anticipate the strong growth in Asia, particularly China. Thus, the red line is the more applicable case in hindsight despite the fact that today we do have higher energy efficiency for appliances, autos, etc. So, parts of the assumptions behind both the red and green lines are true.

  115. NC says:

    As I have read, Hansen is Gore’s mentor. I have also read that Gore has quite a nice condo on or near the San Francisco waterfront, which he bought fairly recently. Is that true? If it is true then he is not a believer in Hansen’s mantra about sea level rise and warming. Only using Hansen to make money.
    Is this proof that Gore knew Hansen was way out there but recognized a good money making scam. Just wondering.

  116. NC says:

    Oh, any Google views of Gore’s digs?

  117. Mr Lynn says:

    Caleb (01:20:47) :
    . . . The question then becomes, can we break the treaty?

    Treaties can always be abrogated, by an act of Congress. They do not in any case supersede the Constitution.

    /Mr Lynn

  118. Richard M says:

    Hansen would be very distressed if he were looking out my window right now. With rain, ice and snow all falling at the same time I can imagine he would be disheartened. This makes it 4 days this month where snow has fallen. Snow in October is not that unusual in Minnesota, but 4 days worth is and we still have a week+ left.

    Could someone please send me a little GW, I could use a bunch ;)

  119. jukin says:

    I’m just a mere engineer but if my theories are proved wrong I don’t thing the experiment is wrong. I think there may be a flaw in my assumptions or theories.

    Of course I’ve designed over a hundred machines that actually perform the function intended.

  120. Jimbo says:

    Ecotretas (23:50:20) :
    It would be great if a (sub)site would record all these predictions. Like Prince Charles, WWF, Hansens, etc, who all predict we’ll have something very bad things in x years, or so. Does anybody know of such site, or should we start a new one?

    The following site does list many failed predictions and contradictory research so I presume they are keeping an update somewhere. It is updated regularly and even has an archive. The link is very useful should you get into an argument with a warmer. :-)

    http://www.c3headlines.com/predictionsforecasts/

  121. Pat Michaels says:

    In Hansen’s paper with this illustration he SPECIFICALLY calls Scenario A (red line) “business as usual”, which is why I used it alone in my 1998 testimony that Paul Krugman and Hansen hate so; obviously there was no major change in technology or policy between 1988 and then.

    He had blown it eleven years ago, which I pointed out then.

  122. ronnytucker says:

    Man! It is about time these Global Warming fruitcakes get told the truth! I was cutting the grass with my wife in June and she turned to me and said, “Ronny it is hotter than a 10 peckered billy goat! I’m pretty sure that Global Warming is here”
    I love her so I told her the truth. “No honey, it’s hot because we live in the Everglades, you are 200 pounds overweight and it is high noon.”

    She understood and I hope more of these polar bear loving quackers get told the same thing.

    It’s hotter because you are fat!!

    Ronny Tucker here!

  123. Paddy says:

    Robert E Phalen: LOL. You have the Irish gift.

  124. Jack Simmons says:

    Skeptic Tank (04:31:22) :

    He lived right upstairs from Monk’s (i.e., Tom’s) Restaurant in Seinfeld?!!

    … and wasn’t there another reference to that same restaurant here on WUWT within the past few days?

    It is the same restaurant! That is simply amazing to me. What a strange circumstance.

    See http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHMI_enUS331US331&aq=2&oq=seinfeld+res&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=seinfeld+restaurant+new+york+city

    Seinfeld was imaginary. Had a setting at 2880 Broadway.

    Hansen’s projections were imaginary. Had a setting at 2880 Broadway.

    It all fits.

  125. Jack Simmons says:

    Matt (23:19:51) :

    Does aybody else think he looks like a combed and shaven Denethor?

    Now that you’ve mentioned it, he does.

    Like Denethor, his palantir has been giving false images, or perhaps he is misreading the visions.

  126. Jerry D. says:

    I haven’t read through all of the posts, but has anyone asked…

    If Dr. Hansen really believed his predictions, why is his office still located there? Or is he an avid swimmer?

  127. E.M.Smith says:

    tokyoboy (22:23:03) :
    To err is human, to forgive divine….. up to a point though.

    ‘But to really screw things up you need a computer.’

    Said by a computer guy who has had to fix far too much of it…

  128. John W. says:

    You have assumed Mr. Hansen thinks.

  129. Gary says:

    Hansen is denying (sort of) that he ever said this. I asked him about it.

    REPLY:
    In person, email, telephone? Please share. – A

  130. pat says:

    The Weather Clown in full bloom.

  131. Gary says:

    Email. Send me a note and I’ll show you. I don’t want to put it here.

  132. Kaj L says:

    “No you’ve got it wrong, you didn’t read the whole article apparently. I’m talking about the fact that Hansen said in 1988/89 “The West Side Highway would be under water in 20 years”, and reaffirmed the prediction in 2001. It is clearly not. His prediction of sea level rise failed badly. – A”

    No you missed the point as usually. The prediction of Hansen is here:

    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/1988/Hansen_etal.html

    There is nothing about “The West Side Highway”. This is what matters, the peer reviewed literature. What someone said 20 years ago but did not publish has nothing to do with science. This is a science blog, right?

    REPLY: Oh puhleezee. Hansen lives his professional life in the media and only the peer reviewed literature matters? If that’s the case then YOU tell Hansen to shut up and stop giving interviews. -A

  133. Keith Minto says:

    Logan (01:48:43) :

    New readers might find the list of philosophical quotations from various bigwigs at http://www.green-agenda.com/ helpful in understanding the source of climate propaganda. Add a large dose of pure cynicism to understand the cap-and-tax garbage.

    This an interesting and scary link that matches the utterances of the residents of 2880 Broadway. I used to think that Paul Ehrlich’s arguments were worth considering in the 1970′s but have a look at the zealotry and cold-blooded, superior attitudes on display.

  134. Ron de Haan says:

    Hanson is in good company of other dubious celebs making failed predictions as Alan gruba points out in his latest article titled “Where are the hurricanes Mr. Gore?
    http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2009/10/where-are-hurricanes-mr-gore_23.html

  135. Keith Minto says:

    an example………………

    “A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells;
    the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people.
    We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to
    the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many
    apparently brutal and heartless decisions.”
    - Prof Paul Ehrlich,
    The Population Bomb

    Very frightening to give people like this a microphone,or an editor.

  136. SteveSadlov says:

    Anyone notice that even the hindcasting back into the 1960s, for not only Hansen C but all his scenarios, also featured exaggerated warming?

  137. SteveSadlov says:

    RE: hunter (09:07:17) :

    Where’s the soup Nazi? LOL!

  138. sky says:

    No wonder Hansen’s predictions turn out funny. He works in the building used by Jerry Seinfeld for restaurant scenes in his TV show.

  139. C3H Editor says:

    Re: Jimbo (10:04:11)

    Wish we did maintain a database of “predictions” gone wrong. All we have is the link to all the postings related to failed predictions: http://www.c3headlines.com/predictionsforecasts/

    We do have two other url’s that are related to model predictions:

    http://www.c3headlines.com/are-scientists-able-to-predict-climate-accurately/

    http://www.c3headlines.com/climate-models/

    There is definite overlap among the three url’s but each has unique postings over the last 11 months.

    C3H Editor

  140. Patrick Davis says:

    “Roger Knights (06:32:32) :

    Patrick Davis (02:20:01) :

    “An example is in WW1, politicians decided arm Allied soldiers with a French made weapon, when there was a far superior weapon available at the same time. At least 100,000 soldiers died because of that decision.”

    I’m curious about that–could you provide more detail?”

    I don’t recall the names of the weapons or politicians etc however, the French made weapon was a gun that had a circular magazine (Like a “Tommy” gun). It was notoriously unreliable, usually jammed, mis-fired or back-fired, exploding in the faces of the user, usually killing them or severly injuring them. It would not fire reliably when wet, too hot or covered in grime. There was, even in the same weapons store, and American made rifle, which didn’t do anything the French weapon did. It was a simple design. It would fire when fired, it would fire when wet or hot. It would even fire when covered in mud. It never mis-fired (Unless it was the bullet didni’t fire), it never back-fired, it never exploded in the users face. Roughly 100,000 allied soldiers, who were issued the French weapon over the American one, died because they could not fire back. Bad political decision making, resulted in bad equipment being issued, resulted in dead solders.

  141. Eduardo Ferreyra says:

    The French machine gun was called the “Chauchat”. It had a semicircular flat magazine ALONG and UNDER the gun and it is touted as the WORST gun EVER made in World’s history, worse than the Japanese Nambú pistol first model.

    Most guns made by “commissions” appointed by governments (politicians) showed to be real bad designs. When technicians get together there seem to be a tendency to follow the politically correct way of not showing onself as a ignornat fool and approve other more important technician view. It was also the case of the German 1888 “Commission Gewher”, the rifle that was intended to replace the single shot, old black powder Mauser 1871 cal. 11.5 mm. Of course, finally Germany adopted the Mauser 1891 by he Mauser Bros. and later the famous 1898 model that was used until in WW2.

    The Chauchat light machinegun was replaced, fortunately, by the BAR, Browning Automatic Rifle, in 30-06 caliber, that was one of the BEST gun ever designed -it was being used in Vietnam in the 60s, when it was replaced by the M-60.

  142. Eduardo Ferreyra says:

    I am sure that Hansen became sour and angry with mankind (or with the rest of normal haired men) because he was GETTING BALD. Some inferior people cannot stand going bald and feel that life has betrayed them. They must take revenge and make the rest of the people hunhappy.

    See how bald he has gotten by now and for sure he would sell his soul to the devil, as Dr. Faustus, if he could get to have as much hair as Roy Spencer. ;-) and wouldn’t be inventing such things as the Coal Train of Death.

    Psychiatry should start working in climatology as urgently needed scientific discipline.

    (And sorry for the prior post on the Chauchat machine gun. I hadn’t read the comment made much earlier…)

  143. Patrick Davis says:

    Eduardo Ferreyra (19:21:52)

    Thankyou for the detail :-)

  144. Philip T. Downman says:

    Well, all here seems to be part of the case. Many, if not most, elderly scientists (politicians and others) keep to their favourite idea, even if it has been falsified. Jim Hansen seems to have been wrong, but he built his career on it and it undeniably had a great impact. Few of us would be flexible enough to admit such an important failure.
    So, I think it’s not some kind of madness. It’s just the way of it. It’s human.

  145. P Wilson says:

    Philip T. Downman (23:23:42

    It may very well be human, but science is cold and hard.

    Future catastrophe and impending calamity, agreed, is as old as the race.

    Such prognostications used to be the arm of religion – which increased their power – religions used to be straitjackets but since its hold over men’s minds is less dominant, religions are now seductive dressing gowns. The emotion of future calamity seems to have been transferred to science instead.

  146. Roger Knights says:

    Thanks for the feedback on the bad machine gun. There is a book on another bad “political” weapons-decision, in a book called The Great naval Battle of Ottawa. The Canadian PM insisted that the sonar for sub-detection be made locally, instead of importing it from Britain. Result: none of the hundreds of Canadian corvettes equipped with it sunk a single sub.

    Here’s another case. In the June 1981 Atlantic magazine, James Fallows published “M-16: A Bureaucratic Horror Story.” It described how the Army’s ordnance department, feathers ruffled from criticism over having foisted the unworkable (too heavy a caliber) SKS assault rifle on NATO over the protests of the British and others, who wanted a light-caliber round similar to what the Germans and Russians had used effectively in WW II, sabotaged the AR-15 by inserting three requirements over the frenzied protests of its designer, a genius named Stoner at Armalite.

    The barrel twist had to be increased to improve accuracy (but this halved lethality); the ammunition had to be changed to a dirty-burning compound from Olin (because it was similar to the powder used in other weapons); and an insertion-assist had to be added to force home recalcitrant rounds (this added zero to effectiveness, but increased cost and weight).

    The original weapon, which can be bought from Armalite, is as good as the article says. But the Army still wouldn’t back down from its mistaken specs, even after Congressional hearings exposed the Ordnance dept.’s blunder. “The system” protects its own—and it recognized blood-brothers in the mediocrity and petty gamesmanship of the blunderers.

    Fallows’ article isn’t available online yet, Fallows explains in his thread on the Atlantic’s site that articles from that date have to be scanned in and are still in a legal limbo. But you can obtain it by interlibrary loan—they may even make a free copy for you and mail it to you. Check with your library.

  147. Turboblocke says:

    Is the current Highway the one that was present when Hansen made his prediction? According to this site http://www.nycroads.com/roads/west-side/
    the current highway wasn’t completed until 2001.

    “Construction of the new West Side Highway began in April 1996. The first section of the project, between Clarkson Street and Horatio Street, was finished in August 1998. The entire “NY 9A Reconstruction Project” was completed in August 2001.”

  148. Turboblocke says:

    “Rivalling the Mauser both in terms of use and reputation was the British Lee-Enfield 0.303-inch rifle, which was issued to virtually all British soldiers on the Western Front (and many elsewhere). First produced in 1907 and officially titled the Short Magazine Lee-Enfield (SMLE) Mark III, the name was derived from its designer (James Lee, an American) and its manufacturer (the Royal Small Arms Factory based in Enfield, London).”
    “The Springfield, manufactured in the U.S. (at Springfield, Massachusetts), was the standard wartime rifle of the U.S. army. It was reliable and produced in a short-barrelled version for issue to the American Expeditionary Force. In short supply however around half of U.S. soldiers in the field were issued with the M1917 ‘American Enfield’.

    The performance of the U.S. rifle was comparable to the British Lee-Enfield, and was also produced in a Mk1 automatic version. The Springfield utilised a licensed Mauser action. Derivatives of the Springfield remained in use until the Korean War.”
    http://www.firstworldwar.com/weaponry/rifles.htm

  149. Hansen’s recent paper indicates that the warming is not due to CO2. See: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/HansenModel.htm

  150. Dr. Max says:

    West Side Highway lies 3 m above sealevel. The fastest sealevel rise during the last deglaciation was about 14 m per 1000 years. To drown West Side Highway in 20 years according to Dr Hansen’s scenario would require a sealevel rise of 700 m per 1000 years. Unprecedented. / Max

  151. Dr. Max says:

    Sorry – about 150 m per 1000 years. I was carried away.

    Max

  152. DoctorJJ says:

    For everyone asking about a website to track the predictions, there is a website
    http://wrongtomorrow.com
    I just checked it and it seems like it’s temporarily down. You can check google’s cache to see what it looks like though. The guy who runs it will accept submissions for any talking head that makes outlandish predictions.

  153. Roger Knights says:

    Continuing on our tangent about political meddling in weapons procurement, the Allies fat-headedly rejected Dutchman Fokker’s triplane (3-wing) design, which was clearly superior, as shown by the results the Germans achieved with it, when he turned to them.

  154. wikiwonk says:

    It’s too darn easy to poke fun at this kind of prediction. I dislike the grandstanding Hanson was engaged in in the first place. Even so, if he merely got the direction of the effect right, he’s playing for par on a tough course. (Many don’t: Paul Erhlich comes to mind.) If sea water is lapping at that roadway in another 20 years, I say he more than covered the bet. If the water already covered that roadway by now, I would say he eagled a par 4. Take a look out a different window, and tell me Hanson’s all wet.

    http://www.ted.com/talks/james_balog_time_lapse_proof_of_extreme_ice_loss.html

    Twenty years ago, he might have said, “well, we don’t understand the ice caps, but we have cause for alarm”. Who would even remember the guy had he done so? Who would now be posting long pages commending his understated prescience?

  155. Kurt says:

    “Chris (09:10:52) :

    The green line was the business as usual case (if I recall correctly) that involved some minor reductions in the growth of CO2 emissions (e.g., higher fuel efficiency, wind power, better heat conservation in buildings, etc.). The red line was the worse case.”

    You have it wrong. I have a copy of Hansen’s testimony in my desk drawer and he clearly refers to scenario A (the red line) as the “business as usual” scenario. In his 1988 published paper, the only caveat he raised with respect to scenario A was that it must “eventually be on the high side of reality” because resource constraints would have to limit exponential growth of emissions in the distant future. I should add, however, that the 1988 paper also indicated that scenario B was “perhaps” the most plausible, whatever that means (putting “perhaps” in front of “plausible” renders the latter term meaningless – it’s either the most plausible or it’s not).

    My feeling is that Michaels was correct to use scenario A in his own testimony to Congress when comparing Hansen’s predictions to reality; since we were in the first decade of the projection, long before resource constraints kick in to limit the exponential growth of CO2 emissions, it was perfectly fair to use scenario A, particularly given the “business as usual” remarks.

    When Hansen got testy about being shown wrong, he took his own words out of context and pretended as if the original paper had simply referred to scenario A as being “on the high side of reality” and then, post hoc, characterized it as a “worst case scenario.” But if you go back to the original paper, he never referred to it as such, and in fact pointed out that the CO2 growth rate assumed by scenario A was conservative.

    Also, when he tried to defend his projections in a follow-up paper, all he did was compare the observed temperatures to the three scenarios and remark that the observed temperatures followed scenario B pretty closely (although they were just as good of a match to scenario C at that point, though no longer even that by now). At no point did do the preliminary factual work of showing that the actual growth in greenhouse gasses followed scenario B. This seemed to be a pretty obvious logical flaw; if, for example, the world was following emissions scenario A, while temperatures were more in line with what the model expected for scenario B, then the model would be an abject failure. Simply overlaying observed temperatures on the three predictions for the three scenarios, and remarking that the observed temperatures followed the middle curve demonstrated nothing.

  156. Kurt says:

    “Kaj L (01:12:37) :

    You call this

    http://www.realclimate.org/images/Hansen06_fig2.jpg

    a “prediction that failed badly” proves only that you don’t understand what you are talking about.”

    Actually, that was the worthless graphic in Hansen’s follow-up article, to which I referred in my last post. Without knowing what the emissions growth rate is that accompanies the land-ocean measurements to 2005, you can’t determine from the figure whether the prediction failed or not. Also, in 2006, the easiset test of whether or not the 1988 model was accurate would have been to dust off the model, input the actual emissions rates, CO2 concentration, volcanic particles, etc. and see how it performed. It was Hansen’s model, and I find it hard to believe that it would have been discarded. The fact that he didn’t use such an obvious method of validation indicates to me that he knew it would fail, so he just put out that overlay hoping that he could fool the journalists into thinking that the proximity of actual temperatures to one of the three scenarios was meaningful.

  157. oshtkd says:

    Wow! This is great “data!”
    So 97% of the world’s climate scientists and EVERY scientific academy on the planet are wrong because James Hansen made this remark in 1988?
    You are really a great scientist!!
    Thanks so much for setting us and the world’s REAL scientists straight!

  158. Stas Peterson says:

    Talk about irony.

    Paul and Gavin’s offices are in the same building that Seinfeld producer, the esteemed ‘Piss Christ ‘ producer and Christian tolerance seeker, used as Seinfelds home.

    It turns out that Larry David’s wife, Laurie David, is the producer/author of the comic phantasy, Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”. For which Mrs. David won an Academy Award, and for which some members of the Oscar Academy now want revoked.

    Tom’s Restaurant would be reachable today only by boat, had the prophecies of Dr. Hansen uttered in 1988 and re-prophesied in 2001; and Mrs. David been based in any reality in this portion of the Multi-verse.

  159. Landin said: “What happened to those who hid the truth in Atlas Shrugged? They were exposed as frauds and their institutions imploded.

    Truth can never be hidden forever.”

    I comment:
    And in one scene the government goons are fretting about a particular lie they’ve been publicizing for weeks that no one is believing them.

    Given the low rank of climate change in polls, before Climategate, there may be hope despite the result of a whole lot of US voters forgetting Martin Luther King’s maxim about “content of character”.

    (Canada’s current government is better though trying to sit side-saddle on the fence for avoid getting defeated.)

Comments are closed.